Three Triggers? Negative Equity, Income Shocks and Institutions as Determinants of Mortgage Default

Abstract

In understanding the determinants of mortgage default, the consensus has moved from an ‘option theory’ model to the ‘double trigger’ hypothesis. Nonetheless, that consensus is based on within-country studies of default. This paper examines the determinants of mortgage default across five European countries, using a large dataset of over 2.3 million active mortgage loans originated between 1991 and 2013 across over 150 banks. The analysis finds support for both elements of the double trigger: while negative equity itself is a relatively small contributor to default, the effect of unemployment, and other variables such as the interest rate, is stronger for those in negative equity. The double trigger, however, varies by country: country-specific factors are found to have a large effect on default rates. For any given level of a loan’s Loan to Value (“LTV”) ratio, and as LTV changes, borrowers were more sensitive to the interest rate and unemployment in Ireland and Portugal than in the UK or the Netherlands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    European papers which do consider loan level data (LLD) include many from Ireland, such as Kelly and O'Malley 2014 Kelly (2012), Kelly et al. (2015), McCarthy (2014), Kelly and McCann (2015), and Lydon and McCarthy (2013). Other European contributions utilising LLD include Kroot and Giouvris (2016) in the Netherlands, Lambrecht et al. (2003) in the UK and Gauthier and Leece (2015), also in the UK. Cross-country papers include Burcu and Grant (2006) and Gerlach-Kristen and Lyons (2015), both of which use cross-country panel data in conjunction with aggregate proxies for LTV ratios and outstanding principal.

  2. 2.

    The relevant data taxonomy and template can be found at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/coll/loanlevel/transmission/html/index.en.html

  3. 3.

    Notably, the ECB ‘data quality score’ attached to each securitisation does not consider variables which are ‘Not relevant at the present time’ (ND,5) as impacting upon data quality. Thus, even securitisations with an ‘A1’ Data Quality rating may still lack a significant amount of data.

  4. 4.

    This column provides the total default amount before the application of sale proceeds and recoveries.

  5. 5.

    This is the percentage change in the unemployment rate, not the change in percentage points. For example, a change in the unemployment rate from 5% to 4% is encoded in the data as −20(%) (a fall of 20%), not −1.

  6. 6.

    The MRTI is calculated yearly total income at origination, divided by the yearly current ‘payment due’.

  7. 7.

    We control for cross-country differences in mortgage instruments; specifically, the type of principal repayment, the principal repayment method, and the interest rate type, as shown in the table. These variables were included in each of the specifications. Most differences are statistically significant but very small. Moreover, the absence of clear ‘sub-prime’ lending in the data means that most mortgage instrument types are not associated with an a priori impact on default.

References

  1. Aron, J., & Muellbauer, J. (2011). Modelling and forecasting with county court data: Regional Morgage possession claims and orders in England and Wales. Spatial Economics Research Centre.

  2. Bhutta, N., Dokko, J., & Shan, H. (2011). Consumer ruthlessness and mortgage default during the 2007-2009 housing bust. SSRN, 1626969.

  3. Bonner, C., Streitz, D., & Wedcow, M. (2016). On the differential Impac of securitization on Bank lending during the Finaical Crisis. De Nederlandsche Bank Working Papers, 501.

  4. Burcu, D., & Grant, C. (2006). Household arrears: What role do Instutions play? Economic Policy, 57(24), 107–140.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell, J. Y., & Cocco, J. F. (2015). A model of mortgage default. The Journal of Finance, 70(4), 1495–1154.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Costa, S. (2012). Households' default probability: An analysis based on the results of the HFCS. Banco de Portugal Financial Stability Report, 2012, 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Foote, C. L., Gerardi, K., & Willen, P. S. (2008). Negative equity and foreclosure: Theory and evidence. Journal of Urban Economics, 62(2), 234–245.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Foster, C., & Van Order, R. (1984). An option based model of mortgage default. Housing Finance Review, 3(4), 351–372.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Francke, M., & Schilder, F. (2014). Losses on Dutch residential mortgage insurances. Journal of European Real Estate Research, 7(3), 307–326.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gathergood, J. (2009). Income shocks, mortgage repayment risk and financial distress among UK households. Centre for Finance and Credit Markets, Working Paper 09/03.

  11. Gerardi, K., Herkenhoff, K., Ohanian, L., & Willen, P. (2018, March). Can’t pay or Won’t pay? Unemployment, negative equity, and strategic default. The Review of Financial Studies, 31(3), 1089–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gerlach-Kristen, P., & Lyons, S. (2015). Mortgage arrears in Europe: The impact of monetary and macroprudential policies. Swiss National Bank, Working Paper No. 2015-05.

  13. Ghent, A. C., & Kudlyak, M. (2011). Recourse and residential mortgage default: Evidence from US states. The Review of Financial Studies, 24(9), 3139–3186.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Greene, W. H. (2002). Econometric analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kelly, R. (2012). House prices, unemployment, and Irish mortgage losses. De Nederlandsche Bank: Household Finances and Behaviour in Times of Crisis.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kelly, R., & McCann, F. (2015). Some defaults are deeper than others: Understanding long-term mortgage arrears. Central Bank of Ireland Research Technical Papers, 05/RT/15.

  17. Kelly, R., & O'Malley, T. (2014). A transitions based model of default for Irish mortgages. Central Bank of Ireland Research Technical Papers, 17/RT/14.

  18. Kelly, R., O'Malley, T., & O'Toole, C. (2015). Designing macro-Prudential policy in Mortgae lending: Do first time buyers default less? Central Bank of Ireland Research Technical Paper, 02/RT/15.

  19. Kroot, J., & Giouvris, E. (2016). Dutch mortgages: Impact of the crisis on probability of default. Finance Research Letters., 18, 205–217.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lambrecht, B., Perraudin, W. R., & Satchell, S. (2003). Mortgage default and possession under recourse: A competing hazards approach. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 35(3), 425–442.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lanot G, & Leece, D. (2015). Mortgage loan characteristics, unobserved heterogeneity, and the performance of United Kingdom securitized subprime loans. Real Estate Economics. American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, 44(4), 771–813

  22. Lydon, R., & McCarthy, Y. (2013, Spring). What lies beneath? Understanding recent trends in Irish mortgage arrears. The Economic and Social Review, 44(1), 117–150.

    Google Scholar 

  23. McCarthy, Y. (2014). Disentangling the role of the labour market, income volatility, and housing equity. Central Bank of Ireland Research Technical Papers, 02/RT/14.

  24. Mian, A., Sufi, A., & Trebbi, F. (2015). Foreclosures, house prices, and the real economy. The Journal of Finance, 70(6), 2587–2634.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moore, M., Rodriguez-Vives, M., & Saca-Saca, N. N. (2014). Mortgage markets and foreclosure processes in Europe and the United States. In C. Enoch, L. Everaert, T. Tressel, & J.-P. Zhou (Eds.), From fragmentation to financial integration in Europe (pp. 995–1037). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Qi, M., & Yang, X. (2009). Loss given default of high loan-to-value residential mortgages. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(5), 788–799.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Riddiough, T. J. (1991). Equilibrium mortgage default pricing with non-optimal borrower behaviour. University of Wisconsin Thesis Dissertation.

  28. Rosenblatt, E., & Crawford, G. W. (1995). Efficient mortgage default option exercise: Evidence from loss severity. Journal of Real Estate Research, 10(5), 543–556.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yatchew, A., & Griliches, Z. (1985). Specificatoin Eror in Probit models. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67(1), 134–139.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zhu, S., & Pace, K. (2015). The influence of foreclosure delays on Borrowers' default behavior. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 47(6), 1205–1222.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the editors and anonymous reviewers and the following for helpful comments: Niamh Hallissey, Paul Lyons, Fergal McCann, Rory McElligott, and Rhiannon Sowerbutts.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Linn.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This paper was completed while Andrew was at Trinity College Dublin. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Bank of England or its committees.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Average Marginal Effect of Additional Liquidity Constraints

Fig. 6
figure6

Mrti average marginal effect by LTV ratio

Fig. 7
figure7

Payment due average marginal effect by LTV ratio

Fig. 8
figure8

MRTI average marginal effects by LTV ratio and country

Fig. 9
figure9

Payment due average marginal effect by LTV ratio and country

Fig. 10
figure10

Average marginal effects of LTI including other liquidity controls

Fig. 11
figure11

Average marginal effects of LTI excluding other liquidity controls

Appendix 2: Correspondence and comparison between Variables used in Specification 3 and those in Kelly et al.

Table 7 Correspondence between EDW variables and Kelly et al. variables
Table 8 Quantitative Comparison between EDW Data and Kelly et al. Data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Linn, A., Lyons, R.C. Three Triggers? Negative Equity, Income Shocks and Institutions as Determinants of Mortgage Default. J Real Estate Finan Econ 61, 549–575 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-019-09711-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mortgage default
  • Negative equity
  • Double trigger
  • European Union